I believe this agenda item was released either late in the day on
Thursday or early on Friday and I know the ARRL is already working on
a strategy to address this NPRM.
Remember that approval of the NPRM is only the first step in a lengthy
process. There will be a 45 day comment period once the NPRM is
published in the Federal Register (which will be a few weeks after the
Commission approves it on December 12th). Then there's a 45 day reply
comment period to address issues raised by commenting parties. After
that, it can be several months or even years before the Commission
issues a Report and Order with the new regulations.
The sky is not falling yet and work on the issue is under way. That
said, this development should not be a surprise to anyone (and
certainly was not a surprise to the ARRL either). We've known for a
few years now that the 3.4 GHz band is the most threatened of our
allocations.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 2:37 PM Steve Stahl <ke7ihg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "So what to do? I think the ARRL should have posted this info on this
> reflector and others informing us on what we can do. I also think they
> (ARRL) should notify each VHF/UHF contest club to disseminate this
> information."
>
> I think the ARRL is part of the "good old boys" problem. Slap each other on
> the back and stick head in the sand.
> This is all about money, BIG MONEY. Data data data. Bandwidth is power. FCC
> looks to make Billons
> Oh and don't forget to send a check to the spectrum defense fund. Sorry, I
> sound so cynical but the fact is we have NO CLOUT!!
> Like truckers and farmers, it's hard to get 2 hams to agree on most
> anything.
> Hate to say it but the die is cast. 900 and 1.2 can't be far off their
> radar. Maybe 70 cm too!
>
> Steve K7SWS
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:48 AM Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I wonder what has changed to cause continued amateur use of the band to
> > apparently be subject to deletion ?
> >
> > When I was involved in a project in Canada that looked at using similar
> > spectrum professionally approx 5 years ago, from my perspective the
> > regulators in Canada seemed supportive of continued amateur access on a
> > shared basis to at least some of the band. At the time I thought the
> > increasing commercial use might have been a good thing for amateurs as
> > relatively low priced broad band equipment was becoming available. To be
> > transparent I don't have any current insight into the Canadian plans for
> > this band.
> >
> > My $.02 worth, the amateur community would be better off looking for
> > smaller chunks of microwave spectrum that can realistically be shared with
> > other users (and trying to partner with those spectrum users) rather than
> > trying to fight for the entire shared allocations we currently have. In my
> > view some professional users might be more willing to share than others (if
> > only to make it harder for the spectrum they use to be eventually taken
> > over by other users.) I realize this may make co ordinated world wide
> > allocations difficult, but some hard choices may need to be made.
> >
> > 73
> > Mark S
> > VE7AFZ
> >
> > mark@alignedsolutions.com
> > 604 762 4099
> >
> > > On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:59 AM, Joshua Arritt <jarritt@vt.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > This wasn't a fight for ARRL only -- but ARAs worldwide.
> > >
> > > Communications policy and spectrum allocation has been a global community
> > > matter from day one, respectfully. We must recognize that to not
> > > mis-charge the term or situation politically. Players left and right --
> > > globally -- are complicit, because no one wants to be left holding the
> > bag
> > > that "held up broadband deployment".
> > >
> > > Great band, 9cm, and 6cm, 13cm with it. But these are the precise spots
> > > cellular wants. 23cm is not immune etiher. Dark skies indeed.
> > >
> > > Incumbent cm-wave microwave spectrum use -- amateur and traditional
> > > commercial uses alike -- has never before been so threatened.
> > >
> > > Use these bands while you can.
> > >
> > > VY 73 DE KF4YLM
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jay RM <w9rm@calmesapartners.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Anybody who has been paying attention to the impending switch from 4G
> > to 5G
> > >> cellular technology has known, or at least strongly suspected, this was
> > >> going to happen. The move to open the 3 GHz band for cellular
> > >> communications has been ongoing for some time. As a matter of fact, the
> > >> spectrum from 3.4 to 3.6 GHz has been designated as "globally
> > harmonized".
> > >> In other words, a world-wide operating band. This spectrum was
> > reallocated
> > >> in the UK a couple years ago and most ITU Region 1 countries have
> > reserved
> > >> it for commercial use for many years. The USA is VERY late to the 3 GHZ
> > >> party. This "harmonization" was discussed and acted upon during
> > WRC2015.
> > >> Read all about it here:
> > >>
> > >>
> > https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/3-GHz-in-the-5G-era.pdf
> > >>
> > >> The "MOBILE NOW Act", passed in 2017 does not specify ANY frequency
> > bands.
> > >> It mandates the "making available" ("ripping away from current
> > occupants"
> > >> in non-Govspeak) of 255 MHz of new spectrum below 6 GHz. One can read a
> > >> summary of the bill here:
> > >> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/19
> > >>
> > >> The old satellite C-Band (remember the big old TVRO dishes of the
> > 1970's)
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
>
>
> --
> Steve / K7SWS
> Formerly KE7IHG
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|